Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
Ron Paul, Barack Obama's Speech, and Common Sense The Common Sense Speech Obama Could Give to truly unite America.by John Armstrong
(Libertarian)
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Barack Obama could use his incredible gifts to truly unite our country and go down as the greatest President in American history if he kept his Oath of Office. Imagine President Obama giving this speech (or a better written version of it) which would undoubtedly "Change" American Politics forever.
I stand before you tonight to do exactly what I said I would when you elected me: Provide Real Change and Unite our great country. I know that I, and many of you, tonight feel that it is a travesty that millions of Americans cannot afford healthcare. In the old world of politics, it would have been easy to blame Republicans for this travesty, but I also promised you that I would always level with you about the challenges we face in proving to the world that "America is truly back." And the truth is that the republicans are not to blame.
When you elected me, you also elected a sizable majority of my fellow Democratic Party members to come with me to Washington. We have more than enough members in Congress to pass the legislation which would allow these millions of American families to receive the healthcare they need. But if that legislation were passed, I would have to veto it. Although there is nothing I would like to do more than sign it into law immediately, I do not have the authority to do so under the Constitution that I swore an Oath to preserve, protect, and defend. As a former constitutional law professor, I know that the elastic "necessary and proper" clause may allow me to sign this legislation, but it was exactly this type of elasticity that allowed former administrations to violate the rights of millions of Americans and kill millions of non-Americans by passing laws that took us to war, criminalized personal choices, and oppressed generations of men and women because of the color of their skin.
It is with these abuses in mind that I refuse to continue "politics as usual" which always divides rather than unites. I stand before you a man of integrity, committed to do what I promised. I promised I would preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States when I took my Oath of office, and I promised to bring healthcare to millions of Americans who need it most before you elected me. Tonight I come before you to let you know that I will keep my Oath, and also to reassure you that when people ask me if I can still keep my campaign promise to deliver healthcare the only answer I give them is "YES I Can", but only with your help. It is for that help I now ask.
Many have forgotten that the Government derives all power only by the consent of the people. Many have also forgotten that it isn't the government, but the people who make this country great. Many feel they don't have a voice, but this is not true, and I ask you tonight to remember your greatness and use your voice to help me help those in need.
We spoke often of "change" during our campaign. The change I need you to help me make tonight is in changing the Constitution, which is your Contract with the government, through a Constitutional Amendment which would allow us to create the legislation needed to provide healthcare to those in need. I am placing a list on our official website of all the representatives who have said they would be willing to support such an amendment as well as those who said they wouldn't. If your representative is on the list of those who does support helping families and children receive the care they need, use your voice this November to keep them in Congress. If they are on the other list, use your voice to let them know that if they don't get on board they won't be on any list in a few months other than the one that begins with the words "Former Representative."
We need two thirds of the House and Senate in favor of this most important "change" in order to get it out to the real source of America's greatness, the people, so you can decide if you are willing to help your fellow man by allowing us, your government, to ensure that their most basic healthcare needs are met.
Even if you are willing to give us the authority to provide this assistance, it will not be a fast process but once completed it will be a rock solid right that every representative, regardless of party will swear to protect when they take office because it will be a part of the Constitution. By addressing the issue in this way, an election of one party will not jeopardize this right. The only way it will ever be taken away is if the people decide they no longer want it.
Although this solution will ultimately be a better one, it doesn't change the fact that it will require time to pass and to implement, and in that interim American citizens will still be suffering.
Until you authorize me and your Congress to help those in need, it is up to you, indeed all of us, to provide for those who will be suffering until this basic right is established, as it should be. It is with this in mind that I announce the creation of the "Humanity Healthcare" fund which will be headed by a Republican, yes Republican, Congressman and physician who, like I am tonight, also kept his Oath of Office and managed his congressional office's finances well enough to return part of it to the Treasury each year. His background and record clearly show that he can be trusted to administer this fund with great care and wisdom; that Congressman is Dr. Ron Paul. Dr. Paul, here is my check for $4,000, which 1% of my income to support this fund. Dr. Paul and the other 534 members of Congress have also pledged 1% of their income for the establishment of this fund. If you, my fellow citizen, will join me in pledging one percent of your earnings, we can make sure these Americans in need are taken care of until a permanent solution is enacted by granting those of us in Washington the power to do so by Amending the Constitution.
By "changing" the way politicians view their Oath of Office with the stand I am taking tonight for mine, never again will a special interest group's desiressupersedethe will of the people. The end of special interest influence is another campaign promise I made to you. This is the first step in that direction. When other politicians follow my lead and honor their Oaths, there will be nothing special Washington is doing that these groups will be interested in or able to influence. The only special interest these groups will have is in doing the same thing we will be doing here in Washington--serving the American People.
America has changed greatly since the Constitution was written, but the inalieanable rights of Americans have not. And those rights are protected by the Constitution that I swore to defend before taking office. In that time, the politicians who came before me were more interested in winning campaigns and doing what was right for the people who elected them instead of doing what was right for every American as an individual--protecting his or her rights by keeping their Oath of Office. One generation's campaign promise of a change for the better became the next generation's political wedge issue, and the third generation's burden. Had the people been asked to actually give their government the power to enact these measures initially, which is what I am asking you to do tonight, the first generation could have been provided for, but the next generation wouldn't have argued over it and caused a rift in our country that benefits no one but those in Washington. Even if the people had given their consent, and things had not gone as planned, the people would have been able to change course before the third generation suffered underneath the burden caused by campaign promises made long ago. Unfortunately, this isn't the case as the coming burden of social security clearly shows, but this no excuse to not begin the process of "changing" America and putting her back on the right course by empowering the people who made her great to begin with.
The Amendment I encourage you to support tonight may be the first, but it shouldn't be the last. And if this Amendment fails to gain the support of the citizens of seventy five percent of the states, we in Washington will know that you have chosen to not give us the power to address this issue. The burden then falls on you, the individual, to help your fellow citizen. And by showing you that we trust you with your government by returning power to you, I am also issuing a statement of my belief in you to help your fellow man. While I and a majority of my fellow elected representatives feel that healthcare should be a right, and that we can provide the best solutions to enforce that right, you may feel differently. Ultimately, how I feel about an issue isn't as important as protecting your other rights which have already been defined and placed in the Contract. This is what I am doing by asking for your true consent before proceeding with legislation that I currently have no true power to enact because it hasn't been expressly granted to me in the Contract I swore to preserve, protect, and defend.
There are several things that have been passed over the years that have now come to be thought of as rights, but they are not rights. They are merely legislation that can be endangered by a single election since they are not Constitutionally protected. Many of these provisions would undoubtedly have passed if the American People had been asked for their consent, but many others wouldn't have.
Therefore, there are several changes you can make to bring your Contract with the government up to date, to let us know what you really want us to do, and in so doing create permanent solutions to the problems which have so long divided us because they became political wedge issues over which the people, the true source of America's strength, had no control for any amount of time greater than one full election cycle.
There were Ten Amendments passed simultaneously at the dawn of this Greatest of Countries; I don't know how many it will take, only you can decide that. Today is the first day of the beginning of a new era in our country. One that will see the people return to power. Your government is willing to do whatever you authorize us to do, to Change what needs changing by Amending the Contract that protects your rights and gives us the power to do what you want us to do and nothing else. Today is the day that once again, the American People will truly decide what should be done by giving us the power to do it--the way it was intended from the beginning. This is your country, not the politicians. We were not elected to rule; we were elected to serve and to enact the laws necessary to fulfill the duties you clearly defined for us.
It is our freedom as Americans and our principles that truly unite us. And that freedom is protected by the Constitution that I will not violate. It is those principles for which I stand tonight, because it's time to tell the world that "America is Back." Can we restore America to greatness? Yes WE Can!
Of course, this speech will never happen. Why would politicians bother asking for the true consent of the people when they can just do what they want because of the "mandate" of the majority?
Why do We the People not understand that any change not authorized by the people only leads to a greater divide because people who don't want that change have no voice?
Why do We the People not understand that politics and government are not the same thing?
Why do We the People not understand that politicians benefit from our divide because they can blame each other for the problems we face instead of admitting that if they had just gotten our consent to begin with, there would either be no problem, we could elect politicians who would enact better laws to enforce the things we actually said we wanted, or we could change the contract and take the power away from them and let someone else do it?
Why do We the People not understand that when government violates our Contract, no matter how good the intentions were, someone's rights and freedoms, the only things that truly unite us, are diminished?
Why do We the People believe that 535 Congressional Members, 1 President, and 9 Supreme Court Justices can come up with better solutions to our problems than 300,000,000 plus Citizens if we had our full freedom and resources with which to solve those problems?
Why do We the People not understand that we and our government are not the same thing, and that "Yes We Can" is by definition a lie since "they" are not "we"?
Thomas Paine said it best in the opening paragraph of Common Sense:
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Isn't it time We The People used a little Common Sense?
Barack Obama will never deliver a speech like this, and Ron Paul may never have the opportunity to deliver a speech like this himself, but as long as the people who have been awakened by his campaign, and the others who were already awake hang together, continue to shake our fellow Americans out of their long slumber, and remember that neither Rome nor America were built nor destroyed in a day, there will undoubtedly be a time after the Revolution when a speech like this won't be transformational but simply Common Sense.
Your Fellow American,
John Armstrong
strongarmedjohn@yahoo.com
Spread the Message by Socially Bookmarking it or reposting it on your blog.
Comment, it's fun.
As always, unlike the NFL, any accounts of, rebroadcasts, retransmissions, repostings in all or part of this work are expressly granted by the author in order to promote the cause of the restoration of our republic.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 30 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of John Armstrong only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. John Armstrong is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
You paint a very idealist picture of a modern day communist plank: Universal Health Care. The shifting of hundreds of billions of dollars from the "military industrial complex" to the "health industrial complex" will not likely be the panacea you envision.
Mr Obama, directly associated with the CFR, is not a "Dove" and will not end war to free up funds for health. His speeches are inspirational rhetoric only. He will continue the same interventionist foreign policy that has America in dangerous financial condition. He will coninue the killing.
The Democrats plans for universal health care will become another massive bureaucracy redistributing wealth. Mrs. Clinton has revealed plans for universal health will be yet another payroll deduction....
Armstrong says "Until you authorize me and your Congress to help those in need, it is up to you, indeed all of us, to provide for those who will be suffering until this basic right is established, as it should be."
Healthcare is not a "right". Nor is a job, a car, food, gas, housing, clothing, insurance, school, vacation in Europe, spouse, children, or a day thte beach.
The author if this writing, John Armstrong, is just another socialist - spouting his belief that "one mans need represents a right and justful claim on the property of another."
It is true that people will suffer and/or die without food, clothing, a roof over their head, treatment for a snakebite (healthcare) and such, but these are not "rights".
We all have a right to our Life, Liberty, and persuit of happyness. But not a right to make others work to provide for us, or for them to make us work to provide for them. Thats slavery.
John, great article. Ron Paul has professed the merits of the constitution and the ideals embraced by those that fought for the freedom to create it. Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution know no race or ethnicity, acknowledge no aristocracy or elite privilege and, in fact, state that all men are created equal. Many battles have been fought over the last 200 years to create true equality for african americans and I, for one, am proud that that issue has finally been settled. Now that we are free in all respects of race and ethnicity, I think this election can now be about re-instating the tenants of the original idea of governance defined by the founders. I hope that words of "liberty", "constitution" and "freedom", as included in Barack Obama's speeches, are being noticed by the large following of citizens he presently has.
Everyone knows that it will take time to ween the majority of people off of the welfare state, but if it can be done, we will truly be free. If Obama supporters are able to understand the immense benefit liberty and limited government will have encouraging self confidence and ingenuity then we are heading some where.
I implore any Obama supporters to distill down the rhetoric and determine if Mr. Obama is embracing liberty, limited government and the freedom to pursue happiness. If that ideal can be the center piece of the election then the details of how we get there will be what is debated, and this will be a significant moment in history. The war in Iraq is the consequence of much larger issues of governance but it is a common thread amongst a large part of the American population. Let us hope we can all rally for true change and get rid of those rascals in D.C.
Posted By: John Armstrong
Date: 2008-02-17 16:40:21
I don't know exactly how people missed this, but this speech is a figment of my imagination. It's just a way to illustrate what Obama COULD say if he gave a damn about the Constitution and his Oath of Office.
Well, John, somebody just called you a socialist for writing this piece.
I get what you're saying, though. If candidates such as Obama want to work for certain changes, then there is a way - a constitutional way - to do it. Good for you for pointing out that it isn't simply a matter of pushing one's set of issues against another's set of issues. Its not simply about a president making good changes, but its a matter of how those changes are made. If liberties are taken with the Constitution, even for good ends, then they will also be taken for ignoble ends. We need to keep reminding our politicians, and our people, what the Constitution is.
John, I realize my comment has no relation to this article, but I feel since it is your most recent article it will be where you are most likely to read it.
I understand how you can come to the conclusion that a more limited government and a freer (word? I don't know) market will be better for the economy - theoretically. However, even though you view our government as too large and our market as too regulated, we are still limited/free-ish in comparison to many European nations. How do you explain the fact that our economy is tanking (sort of) as their's continues to grow?
Posted By: John Armstrong
Date: 2008-02-18 00:43:34
Charles,
I've never argued that government spending can't help the economy. In fact, it is a rather large component of growth.
My problem with the government's role in the economy is this:
First, there is no such thing as "government" spending. Just like there is no such thing as a "corporate" tax. Every dollar the government spends comes from individuals, even if it is collected from "corporations", or it is an indirect tax like the inflation "tax" created by the printing of money which hurts the middle class more than the "rich." Everything the government spends money on thus restricts the freedom of the individual to choose how to spend the fruits of their labor.
Secondly, under the current Contract that our elected officials are sworn to uphold, they have no right to be involved with the "economy" to begin with.
Thirdly, most of the things that money is being spent on is likewise not allowed under the Contract except by stretching its meaning tremendously (think Iraq War for an example about which we seem to have common ground).
Fourthly, our economy is (sort of) tanking because of government intervention. There are cycles in business. You'll learn about this in your macro-econ class. When the government "prevents" a naturally occurring cycle from happening (like printing a ton of money--i.e. the Fed lowering interest rates--to bail out the mortgage industry) the end result is something far worse than what would have happened had the cycle run its course.
Here's an easy to understand analogy: pretend you need to study for an exam, so you stay up all night drinking red bull and taking adderrall. You do well on your exam, and then you go to sleep. This isn't a big deal if you have one sleepless night and one exam, but when you have exams every day for a month straight, and you stay up night after night, eventually the results of the ensuing crash (and several missed exams or even death) is far worse than one or two poor exam grades would have been if you'd gotten some sleep. Of course, one way to avoid this would have been to just stay up on your studies all along.
Our economy is doing poorly because we are reaching the end of a very, very long sleepless session where we kept chugging red bull and popping pills to stay awake.
Other countries don't suffer from this because their citizens are already taxed a ridiculous amount so their governments have money to spend. But they are okay with this; their Contracts allow it. They decided they wanted more services and were willing to sacrifice individual financial freedom for this. As Americans, we never made this decision, our politicians made it for us, without our consent.
"Other countries don't suffer from this because their citizens are already taxed a ridiculous amount so their governments have money to spend. But they are okay with this; their Contracts allow it. They decided they wanted more services and were willing to sacrifice individual financial freedom for this. As Americans, we never made this decision, our politicians made it for us, without our consent."
I've done some on-the-spot research into this statement. As near as I can tell you are implying that other countries have constitutions that specifically allow them to receive universal health care. This is just not the case. Since I am not a Paultard, I will share my research with you rather than linking you to Youtube videos.
The oldest universal healthcare system in the world is in Germany (1883), started by Bismarck's Health Insurance Act. Note that this is an act signed into law by the legislature, not a constitutional amendment. Also note that this doesn't really matter since they've had something like 3 constitutions since then.
Britain's system was created following the National Health Service Act in 1946. Again, note that this was an act signed into law by Parliament, and not an amendment to Britain's (partially unwritten) constitution.
Canada created a system of universal health care in 1984 with the adoption of the Canada Health Act. Again, note that this is an act of legislature and not a constitutional amendment (as you have proposed). This is probably the most important example because it best illustrates how a system could work in the United States. It sets standards that provinical health insurance programs must meet in order to receive funding from the government (something the federal gov't in the States does quite often, e.g. speed limits). It is specifically set up this way in order to NOT be unconstitutional (I'm not 100% clear on the Canadian constitution, but this is basically what I understand).
The precedent around the world is that universal health care can be provided for by an act of legislature as opposed to a constitutional amendment. The idea of a representative democracy is that we elect representatives whose ideas we most agree with; in this case, we would elect someone who pledges to create a universal health care system (e.g. Barack Obama). Why you feel we haven't given our government our consent to do this I do not understand (well actually, I understand it, I just don't see why anyone would think this way).
Also remember that we are the only major industrialized country without a universal health care system (this is ridiculous).
I did not get the groupthink memo deprecating information sharing via Youtube video link before I committed said infraction. My intention was to foster understanding but I see now that I have crossed class boundaries. How thoughtless of me.
Armstrong says "Until you authorize me and your Congress to help those in need, it is up to you, indeed all of us, to provide for those who will be suffering until this basic right is established, as it should be."
Healthcare is not a "right". Nor is a job, a car, food, gas, housing, clothing, insurance, school, vacation in Europe, spouse, children, or a day thte beach.
The author if this writing, John Armstrong, is just another socialist - spouting his belief that "one mans need represents a right and justful claim on the property of another."
It is true that people will suffer and/or die without food, clothing, a roof over their head, treatment for a snakebite (healthcare) and such, but these are not "rights".
We all have a right to our Life, Liberty, and persuit of happyness. But not a right to make others work to provide for us, or for them to make us work to provide for them. Thats slavery.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
